first gen Dura and other 70's components- why?
 

They're cool looking from a tech and machinists view, they perform well enough compared to walmart deralers and cranks... but compared to modern Sora and truvativ?

What is the draw? I've seen people using a thirty year old bottom bracket as a selling point for a bike. I get old steel. But old cranks? Old derailers?

Many non-musicians still find beauty in a half-century old Les Paul guitar, some even know the phrase "P.A.F.". Many non-car-enthusiasts get excited by a mint 69 Chevelle, and some know what Cragars are and what dual exhaust sounds like. Nearly no non-cyclists know what a Colnago is and none have a clue what Campy record is, so why bother? "It just looks like my dad's bike" my girlfriend said. The DA had no effect on her.

I really want to know why I should want a complete old high-end bike instead of just the frameset?

If you don't want it, don't buy it. Your question is like asking why you should like music, or literature. What's it for? Why not just watch TV? There are plenty of people here who hotrod frames so that they combine a classic steel frame with modern tech. There aren't that many bikes where it's a great crime to do so.

I tend to ride my bikes with more modern parts more often. Reasons for buying a classic bike and keeping it original varies, but for some of us it's nostalgia, for many its aesthetics, others prefer lower costs (maintenance and up front) and a few like it more. I'm not going to hot rod a 60s Cinelli when I bought it for its beauty to begin with. And I have plenty of bikes with more modern parts if I don't feel like fussing with dt shifters that day.

As far as old cranks and old bottom brackets...what's wrong with them? Why NOT use them? What advantage does a modern crank really have over a classic SR crank? A little weight, not even that much. Most of us would say the ugly factor of a modern crank is more significant than the advantage. Old bottom brackets still work just fine if maintained.

If you feel otherwise, nothing is requiring you to like or, or own, a classic bike.

I'm more of an 80s DA crank and BB guy myself.

New Shimano cranks are hideous and I like cup and cone square taper BBs.

Campagnolo made really nice looking square taper cranks up until just a couple of years ago, so I have DA shifters and derailleurs with 2005ish Campagnolo Record cranks and BB on my Scapin.

+1 - the real question is why would you use 70s Shimano and not Campagnolo, or even Suntour? Other than price obviously.

Ain't nothing wrong with getting a bare classic frame and putting newer bits on, though. I'd try to at least get 105. Some people might cry if you put Sora on a nice 80s Colnago, for instance. :)

Only had one Truvativ road crank, and it was alright. Gloss black gxp something or other. Evita or something.

You need to upgrade your GF.

With a new group or carbon fiber?

I realize there have been real improvements over the years, and some of them are pretty great, but i am not persuaded that all of these improvements are really that significant. They may give some riders an advantage in some situations, but they may also have features that offer only theoretical advantages, or what would be advantageous in certain situations but are not so advantageous in the way the bike is actually ridden.

Okay, so that's all very hypothetical and probably not very helpful. Sorry.

What it boils down to, for me, is that the 1974 Fuji Ace I was riding a few moments ago, with its first generation Dura Ace, works great. From a functionality point if view, it is well within the acceptable range. The newer stuff may be better; I cannot comment. But I am pretty sure, in my ignorance, that the new stuff is not vastly better. Just incrementally better.

I just happened to pick the Ace this morning, so that's why I use it as an example in the last paragraph. I could just as well have chosen a much older or a much newer bike, and I know, it would not have made me faster or more comfortable. The important variable, the rider, is not a variable at all.

If you have to ask you will never understand.

If you want to make it easy, I'll buy the bike in question and you can buy the frameset from me. I'm heading that way on Monday so it would be an easy pickup for me.

this

The fact that a well maintained, decades old Dura Ace bottom bracket can still spin smoothly while a Sora cartridge bottom bracket can crap out after a year of normal use should be a clue why a person might choose one over the other.

Just my opinion- I *may* be way off the mark here- it's not meant to throw stones at you- just my impression from very quickly and vaguely skimming through your posts to see your background on things.

I think you get "old steel" for what you want to get out of old steel: the fashion and retro allure of a cool old frame. You don't get the "classic old bike" aspect. But you love cycling. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

In the 80s it was badass to have a pre CBS Strat- but even cooler to rout it out for a Kahler and DiMarzios. Some car guys dream of finding an unmolested 66 GTO to cut a hole in the hood to fit a huge chrome blower on and drop in a 455, lifting it and turn it into a scary looking rod. And some bike people dream of finding a Masi and streamlining it and fixing it.

And then there's the people that like and appreciate the stock 62 Strat, and a stock 66 GTO and the classically built up Masi.

The point is- It is your dad's bike.

Now- keep in mind, I'm the middle aged guy who likes mid 80s touring bikes and 80s to early 90s components.

Not all old components are equal. I appreciate the look of the Dura Ace, 600 and Golden Arrow stuff. It's pretty, it's unique. But the Suntour stuff blows it away. I see no crime in taking off an Arabesque crank and derailleurs and replacing it with Cyclone- I did that with my 78 Trek. It rides much nicer and shifts much better.

Do I believe there's a performance improvement in using some modern components... Yes. Is it enough of a performance improvement to overlook the stylistic change... No. But an old steel frame with new components is always going to be heavier than a modern frame, so whatever performance you're getting, you're negating with the weight. Since the mid 90s, bike parts have gotten progressively more hideous. IMO, for what I ride for and what I appreciate bikes for- riding what I consider to be a cool and graceful bike overrides any performance benefits of a modern bike. If I wanted those, I'd get a modern bike.

Again, it's not meant to rip on you- but the point is this is your dad's stuff. And someday you're going to look back at the silly **** you thought was cool at the time. Just like I really don't want to be reminded of how I wished I could be in a band like Ratt. When I was a kid- I got old guitars because that's what I could afford; yeah they looked cool in a Jimmy Page sort of way (and I was into that as well)- but the overwhelming thing was that they were under $500 for a sweet guitar. I'm sure the old guys that were into guitars looked at me sideways. Over a period of time, I really got to appreciating that 'old guitar' aspect of them. To me, to this day- nothing sounds much better than a Les Paul with underwound pickups through an early master volume Marshall with the gain backed off. It's what I "grew up" with. On the other hand, stuff like the 70s large headstocked Fenders and Gibsons look gaudy in a leisure suit sort of way. But that look became hot around 10 years ago- but it still looked ugly to me.

It's a hobby. Those who indulge are not interested in the dismissals of others, nor do we seek to change their bicycle buying habits. We enjoy the aesthetics, we enjoy embracing the best bikes from the past. I own newer and older bikes and the variety is part of the fun within my cycling addiction.

I thought this just before I clicked publish. But I wanted to see if some clyde who's been regularly mashing on the same pretty crankset for decades would contribute an outlier opinion on durability that would undo the scare put in me from the broken components site.
Really, I shouldn't he as concerned about it as I just had my early 80's SR cranks slammed by an SUV and they still seem fine...

Yeah, I'm still on the fence, I'll pm you!

I do love the look, but just as I could but wouldn't dd a Lamborghini Espada for worry of both getting stranded and leaving the world with one less good example, I'd be hesitant to daily mash with clipless a beautiful set. To cross my fingers and hope that some kid with a cables-dangling, barely functional mtb doesn't get caught on my nice derailer and bend the thing to death while tossing his bike on the locking rail. I was less concerned with cranks that I couldn't sell for over thirty bucks even if they were NOS, but stuff that people pay more than two months' part-time wages for, I'd feel guilty for thrashing. Are there any of you who are putting hundreds of not-easy miles on your old groups? Or do you all treat them with the respect and take them out only on occasiins and only spin them?

My tools fit the old components.

I like the first gen DA cranks, with a 39 inner chainring, Chorus 9 FD and Campy 10 shifting Shimergo it is one smooth shifting combination. Much nicer than the EBAY going price would indicate in functional use and aesthetics.

There is no technical reason you should want a complete vintage high end bike. Some things in life just can't be explained in terms of improved efficiency or lower cost, "better" does not always equate to more enjoyable. I recently sold my '55 Studebaker, it was a real handful to drive compared to today's cars. 4 barrel carburetor that vapor locked on today's gasoline, king pin front suspension, no power steering, non-power drum brakes, 3 speed manual transmission with column shift........ you didn't just sit behind the wheel and steer it, you DROVE it. I was usually tired after driving it very far but I was also left with a feeling of total contentment, it was like having my own personal time machine back to a simpler time. Buy a frameset you like and build it the way you want, leave the vintage high end components to those who appreciate the history behind them and the experience of how things used to be. Some people "get it", some don't.

I love this post. So much. In my town, no bike is fashionable unless it has a v-twin or pegs and a gyro. But I know the durability of steel vs aluminum from how much abuse my 68 Bridgestone tmx took through middle and high school, and how little my friend's then-new honda cr took for less than two years before it cracked. I have similar stories for 4130 vs 6061 bmx frames. I suppose OS tubes carry a stigma of easy fatigue in my head. I feel that I can rely on a skinny steel frame regardless of age, but have to constantly check with a microscope any aluminum before and after every ride.

[QUOTE=MattoftheRocks;17287462. Are there any of you who are putting hundreds of not-easy miles on your old groups? Or do you all treat them with the respect and take them out only on occasiins and only spin them?[/QUOTE]

This is the bike that got me back into group rides. Rides that average over 20mph with spurts of up to 30mph. It befuddled some other riders, most didn't know or care what I was riding. But just cause its old, doesnt mean its fragile or not up to the task of hard use.

Peugeot UO-8 with $20 bike swap find wheels. Brooks B-17 and Nitto rando bars. Everything else stock 1974 parts.
http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a2...D720/ry%3D480/

That's just Crazy Talk.:rolleyes:
You might want to do some research on bicycle frame materials and construction techniques to inform your "feel" with some facts.
Here's a pic of the aluminum frame with it's glass smooth 22 year old DA BB that I'm going out on this AM w/o any microscopic examination. :eek:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=416555

All of my now "old" bikes were bought new, raced and ridden with brio in all weathers and are still in service.
Buying quality makes sense if the machine is ridden as intended for a long period of time. That would be for decades and many, many thousands of brisk miles.

-Bandera

Why do we like anything? We just do.

And they are more attractive. I smile every time I open my Campagnolo tool case.

The point I tried to make in my previous post, that the old stuff functions well enough for its intended purpose, missed the point. On closer reading I realize you're not using it for its intended purpose. You want something that will impress your girl friend, not her father.
I can't answer that question. I have bikes because I like to ride them, and I have the ones I have because they are the one I want to ride. My wife is more impressed with the riding I do, than the bikes I ride.

As for the daily driver aspect, I do consider my 2001 Lemond my "rain bike", and try to save the Scapin for sunny days.

I still wind up out in the rain on the Scapin a lot though.

If it's a frame with nice original paint I'd never dd it, lock it up on bike racks all the time, etc.

As for Durability I'd trust fc-7400 cranks more than my fc-5500. Something about that Octolink crap just gives me the Willies.

as mentioned above, if you're willing to repack now and again, cup and cone BB will last a good long while.

And I'd rather avoid 6600 or 5600. Just say no to squids. And the new DA cranks look like they'd be at home on a 1974 AMC Matador. Not as bad as the squids but still ugly!

Now Campy has jumped on the hideous 4 arm spider bandwagon too.